37334 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

the merchandise; and (3) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will be the rate established

in the investigation of sales at less than

fair value, which is 14.51 percent. These

deposit requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and subsequent assessment of

double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.22(f).

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18307 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A–580–807]

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of

Korea; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On March 6, 1998, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

polyethylene terephthalate film sheet,

and strip (PET film) from the Republic

of Korea. The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States and

the period June 1, 1996 through May 31,

1997.

As a result of comments we received,

the dumping margin has changed from

that presented in our preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. Heaney, or Linda Ludwig,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–4475, or 3833,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background

On March 6, 1998, (63 FR 11214), the

Department published the preliminary

results of administrative review and

recission in part of the antidumping

duty order on PET film from the

Republic of Korea, 56 FR 25669, (June

5, 1991).

This review covers one

manufacturers/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States: SKC

Co., Ltd, (SKC), and the period June 1,

1996 through May 31, 1997.

The Department has concluded this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of all gauges of raw,

pretreated, or primed polyethylene

terephthalate film, sheet, and strip,

whether extruded or coextruded. The

films excluded from this review are

metallized films and other finished

films that have had at least one of their

surfaces modified by the application of

a performance-enhancing resinous or

inorganic layer of more than 0.00001

inches (0.254 micrometers) thick. Roller

transport cleaning film which has at

least one of its surfaces modified by the

application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR

latex has also been ruled as not within

the scope of the order.

PET film is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The

HTS subheading is provided for

convenience and for U.S. Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of

the product coverage.

The review covers the period June 1,

1996 through May 31, 1997.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act), are references

to the provisions effective January 1,

1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

references to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 353

(1997).

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to

comment on the preliminary results of

this administrative review. On April 6,

1998, we received timely comments

from the respondent, SKC and the

petitioners (E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

Company, Hoechst Celanese

Corporation, and ICI America’s Inc.)

(Petitioners). SKC and the Petitioners

submitted their reply briefs on April 13,

1998 and April 14, 1998 respectively.

Comment 1: SKC contends that the

payment dates for some of the U.S. sales

reported in its December 8, 1997 letter

were incorrectly transcribed, thereby

overstating its U.S. credit expense. SKC

contends that the Department should

accept the corrected payment dates set

forth in its March 16, 1998 letter. SKC

further contends that the correct

payment dates are discernible from the

record, and that the error in question is

clearly clerical in nature.

SKC argues that the Department’s

established practice is to accept

corrections following the preliminary

results when (1) the error in question is

demonstrated to be a clerical error; (2)

the corrective documentation provided

in support of the clerical error allegation

is reliable; (3) the respondent availed

itself of the earliest reasonable

opportunity to correct the error; (4) the

clerical error allegation, and any

corrective documention, is submitted to

the Department no later than the due

date for the respondent’s administrative

case brief; (5) the clerical error does not

entail a substantial revision of the

response; and (6) the respondent’s

corrective documentation does not

contradict information previously

determined to be accurate at

verification. (See e.g., Certain Fresh Cut

Flowers from Colombia, Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, (Colombian Flowers) 61 FR

42833, 42834 (August 19, 1996).)

SKC asserts that the corrected

information meets the criteria outlined

in Colombian Flowers because the error

contained in its December 8, 1997

response is demonstrably clerical, can

reliably be discerned from the data on
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37335

record, and was brought immediately to

the Department’s attention upon receipt

by SKC of its disclosure materials.

Moreover, SKC argues that correction of

this error would not entail a substantial

revision of its response. Finally, SKC

notes that the data provided in its

March 16, 1998 submission does not

contradict any previously verified

information.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SKC. The Department will accept a

respondent’s clerical corrections so long

as it fulfills the criteria first articulated

in Colombian Flowers. (See Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan,

and Tapered Roller Outside Diameter,

and Components Thereof, From Japan,

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and

Termination in Part, 20585, 20610

(April 27, 1998) (citing NTN Bearing

Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204

(Fed. Cir. 1995) and Colombian

Flowers).) The formatting error resulted

in the uniform transcription of ‘‘9’’ as

‘‘0’’ for certain U.S. sales. For example,

payments made on March 5, 1997 were

incorrectly read as ‘‘070305’’ rather than

‘‘970305’’. This error is clearly clerical

in nature. Further, SKC provided

reliable documentation supporting its

correction of that clerical error. SKC

corrected the clerical error five days

after receipt of its disclosure materials,

and provided the corrective

documentation prior to submission of

its case brief. Finally, correction of this

clerical error does not constitute a

substantial revision of SKC’s response,

and does not contradict previously

verified information. Thus, consistent

with the position established in

Colombian Flowers, we have used SKC’s

corrected payment dates in these final

results.

Comment 2: Consistent with previous

administrative reviews of this case, SKC

objects to the Department’s equal

allocation of scrap costs to A-grade and

B-grade film. SKC contends that its

allocation methodology is reasonable

and consistent with widely accepted

accounting concepts. In support of its

argument, SKC cites to the March 5,

1996 case brief filed in the second and

third administrative reviews of this

case. (See Attachment 1 of SKC’s April

6, 1998 case brief.)

SKC states that allocating the cost of

scrap film equally to A-grade and Bgrade films improperly overstates the

cost of B-grade films while understating

the cost of A-grade films. SKC contends

that its methodology of initially

allocating costs equally among A-grade

film, B-grade film, and scrap, and then

reallocating the cost of scrap to the cost

of A-grade film is consistent with

accepted cost accounting

methodologies.

SKC also asserts that its methodology

is consistent with the Department’s

treatment of jointly produced products

in numerous other antidumping

proceedings, wherein the Department

recognized that a pure quantitative, or

physical measures approach to cost

allocation is unreasonable where there

is a significant difference in the value of

the jointly produced products.

SKC cites Elemental Sulphur from

Canada, 61 FR 8239, 8241–8243 (March

4, 1996) (Sulphur from Canada); Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Argentina,

60 FR 33539, 33547 (June 28, 1995)

(OCTG from Argentina); Canned

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60 FR

29553, 29560 (June 5, 1995) (Pineapple

from Thailand) in support of its

position.

SKC maintains that it is the

Department’s well-established practice

to calculate costs in accordance with a

respondent’s normal cost accounting

system unless the system results in an

unreasonable allocation of costs, and

cites Pineapple from Thailand as

support for this assertion. SKC states

that its reported cost of manufacturing

(COM) data were calculated in

accordance with its normal and longestablished management cost

accounting system. SKC notes that in

the first review of this case (covering the

period November 30, 1990 through May

31, 1992), the Department allocated all

of the costs associated with the

production of scrap film to A-grade film.

SKC contends that this methodology

was recently upheld by the Court of

International Trade (CIT). (See E.I.

Dupont de Nemours & Co., et al. v.

United States, No. 98–35, Slip. Op. at

12–14 (CIT March 26, 1998 (DuPont).)

Based upon the foregoing, SKC

concludes that the Department should

allocate all scrap costs to A-grade film.

Petitioners argue that SKC has not

provided justification for the

Department deviating from its current

practice which is to allocate costs

equally between prime- and off-grade

merchandise. Petitioners note that the

allocation of scrap film has been a

contentious issue from the LTFV

investation of this case. Petitioners

further note that the Department’s

method of allocating yield losses

equally between A-grade and B-grade

film is consistent with the ruling of the

U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal

Circuit in IPSCO v. United States, 965

2d. 1056 (Fed Cir., 1992) (IPSCO).

Petitioners contend that the

methodology employed by the

Department in this review is consistent

with that employed in the second (June

1, 1992 through May 31, 1993) and third

(June 1, 1993 through May 31, 1994)

reviews of this case. Additionally,

Petitioners assert that the decision by

the CIT in DuPont does not require the

Department to employ the allocation

methodology used in the first review of

this case. Petitioners contend that in

accepting SKC’s reported costs for the

first review, the Department predicated

its acceptance of SKC’s allocation

methodology on the understanding that

SKC had applied ‘‘a cost methodology

that assigns equal costs to the prime and

off-grade PET film in accordance with

the Ipsco Appeal.’’ (original emphasis).

(See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet and Strip From the Republic of

Korea; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR

42835, 42839 (August 17, 1995).)

Petitioners assert that this indicates that

the Department believed that ‘‘SKC’s

reported cost allocation system was

based on allocating equal costs’’ to Agrade and B-grade film. Petitioners

contend that the allocation methodology

set forth by SKC does not allocate scrap

costs equally to A-grade and B-grade

film, and thus should be rejected by the

Department.

Additionally, Petitioners challenge

SKC’s characterization of its proposed

allocation methodology as ‘‘normal and

long-established.’’ Petitioners cite to

their April 14, 1997 reply brief filed in

the fifth administrative review (June 1,

1995 through May 31, 1996) of this case

in which Petitioners contend that SKC

had historically assigned equal costs to

all PET film and devised its current cost

system only after the initiation of this

dumping case.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Petitioners and disagree with SKC. As

we explained in the final results of

previous reviews of this order, we have

determined that A-grade and B-grade

PET film have identical production

costs. Accordingly, we continue to rely

on an equal cost methodology for both

grades of PET film in these final results

(See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of

Korea: Final Results of Review and

Notice of Revocation in Part 61 FR

35177, 33182–83 (July 5, 1996) (Second

and Third Reviews); Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from the Republic of Korea; Final results

of Review and Notice of Revocation in

Part 61 FR 58374, 58375–76, (November

14, 1996) (Fourth Review); and

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,

and Strip from the Republic of Korea;

Final Results of Review, 62 FR 38064,

38065–66, (July 16, 1997) (Fifth

Review).)
37336 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

Moreover, as noted in the final results

of the second through the fifth reviews,

the CIT has also ruled that our

allocation of SKC’s production costs

between A-grade and B-grade film is

reasonable (see E.I. DuPont de Nemours

& Co., Inc. et al. v. United States, 932

F. Supp. 296 (CIT 1996)).

As Petitioners have indicated, our

acceptance of SKC’s allocation of scrap

costs in the first review of this case was

based upon our understanding that SKC

had properly allocated the costs of Agrade and B-grade film. In that review,

we did not verify SKC’s costs data. We

determined that no verification of SKC

was necessary because SKC was verified

in the original investigation. Second and

Third Reviews, 60 FR at 42839. Based

upon the evidence existing in the record

during that proceeding, we accepted

SKC’s computations because we were

satisfied that it had calculated actual

costs consistent with the IPSCO

decision.

During the second and third

administrative reviews, however, we

carefully examined SKC’s allocation

methodology and conducted a thorough

verification of SKC’s accounting

records. We determined that the

allocation methodology employed by

SKC fails to capture the actual

production costs of A-grade and B-grade

film. Based upon this determination, we

have consistently required SKC to

allocate yield losses equally between Agrade and B-grade film since the second

review of this case. Further, we have

determined that A-grade and B-grade

film undergo an identical production

process that involves an equal amount

of material and fabrication expenses.

The only difference in the resulting Aand B-grade film is that at the end of the

manufacturing process a quality

inspection is performed during which

some of the film is classified as high

quality A-grade product while other

film is classified as lower quality Bgrade film (see Fourth Review (covering

the period June 1, 1994 through May 31,

1995), 61 FR at 58375).

Finally, SKC’s argument that DuPont

affirmed SKC’s allocation methodology

is without merit. DuPont does not

require the Department to accept an

allocation methodology that does not

accurately capture the actual cost of Agrad and B-grade film. In DuPont, the

CIT concluded that the Department’s

acceptance of SKC’s calculations was

supported by substantial evidence. The

Court further concluded that the

calculations properly reflected SKC’s

actual costs of production. The CIT,

however, did not affirm SKC’s

allocation methodology. It merely

accepted the allocations resulting from

the methodology because those

allocations (based upon record

evidence) reflected actual production

costs as required by IPSCO.

In the four previous reviews of this

case, the Department has determined

that SKC’s allocation methodology fails

to capture the actual cost of A-grade and

B-grade film. We continue to maintain

that SKC’s reliance on Sulphur from

Canada. Pineapple from Thailand, and

OCTG from Argentina is misplaced.

Those cases concerned the appropriate

cost methodology for products

manufactured from a joint production

process. SKC has mischaracterized the

continuous production process of PET

film as a joint production process. A

joint production process occurs when

‘‘two or more products result

simultaneously from the use of one raw

material as production takes place.’’

(See, Management Accountants

Handbook, Keeler, et al., Fourth Edition

at 11:1.) A joint production process

produces two distinct products and the

essential point of a joint production

process is that ‘‘the raw material, labor,

and overhead costs prior to the initial

split-off can be allocated to the final

product only in some arbitrary, although

necessary, manner.’’ Id. The

identification of different grades of

merchandise does not transform the

manufacturing process into a joint

production process which would

require the allocation of costs. In this

case, since production records clearly

identify the amount of yield losses for

each specific type of PET film, our

allocation of yield losses to the films

bearing those losses is reasonable, not

arbitrary (Fourth Review, 61 FR at

58575–76).

It is the Department’s practice to

calculate costs in accordance with a

respondent’s management accounting

system. Where that system reconciles to

the respondent’s normal financial and

cost accounting records and results in a

reasonable allocation of costs.

Management accounting deals with

providing information that managers

inside an organization will use.

Managerial accounting reports typically

provide more detailed information

about product costs, revenue and

profits. They are used to identify

problems, objectives or goals, and

possible alternatives. In order to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaires, SKC officials devised a

management accounting methodology

for allocating costs incurred in the film

and chip production cost centers to

individual products produced during

the period of investigation. SKC adopted

this cost accounting system to reflect a

management goal (i.e., to respond to the

Department). Under this system, SKC

assigns the yield loss from the

production of A- and B-grade films

exclusively to the A-grade films. This

methodology helps management to

focus on the film types with low yields.

However, notwithstanding SKC

management’s concern that it accurately

portray the cost of their A-grade

products, this managerial accounting

methodology is not appropriate for

reporting the actual costs of A- and Bgrade products. As previously noted, Agrade and B-grade films undergo an

identical production process. B-grade

film is made using the same materials,

on the same equipment, at the same

time as the A-grade film. As such, scrap

costs must be allocated equally to Aand B-grade films. It is within the

Department’s mandate to accept or

reject the allocation methodologies

devised by respondents. In this

instance, we have continued to rely on

an equal cost allocation methodology

which reflects the actual costs incurred

for both A-grade and B-grade film.

Comment 3: SKC asserts that the

Department double counted inventory

carrying costs in its calculation of COP

and CV. SKC contends that all COP

interest expenses were included in the

variable RCOP, and that all CV interest

expenses were included in the variable

INTEXCV.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SKC. In these final results, we have

revised the computer program to

eliminate the double-counting of

inventory carrying costs in our

calculation of COP and CV.

Comment 4: SKC asserts that the

Department failed to include U.S.

indirect selling expenses incurred in the

home market for purposes of calculating

CEP profit. SKC contends that the

Department should adjust its calculation

of CEP profit to account for all U.S.

selling expenses. regardless of where

they were incurred.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SKC. Consistent with our established

practice, we have not distinguished

‘‘activities in the United States from

other selling expenses’’ in our

calculation of CEP profit. (See Import

Administration Policy Bulletin No. 97/1.

Calculation of Profit for Constructed

Export Price Transactions (September 4,

1997).)

Comment 5: SKC contends that the

Department should offset interest

revenue against imputed credit in

building up the pool of U.S. selling

expenses used to allocate profit to CEP

sales. SKC notes that the Department

made this offset in the final results of

the fifth review. (See Final Analysis
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37337

Memorandum for SKC from Analyst to

the file, June 30, 1997.)

Department’s Position: We agree with

SKC. In these final results, we have

offset SKC’s interest expense with the

interest revenue realized by SKC.

Comment 6: Petitioners contend that

the Department should revise SKC’s

imputed credit expenses on sales to

Anacomp. Petitioners assert that SKC’s

calculation of credit expense is

inconsistent with the ruling of the

Federal Circuit in LMI-LaMetalli

Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States.

(LMI) 912 F.2d 455 (Fed. Cir. 1990)

because SKC has not based its

calculation of U.S. credit expense upon

‘‘usual and reasonable commercial

behavior.’’ (LMI at 461.)

Petitioners contend that the

Department’s calculation of SKC’s U.S.

imputed credit expense should consider

Anacomp’s ‘‘poor financial condition

and the unusual trade credit term that

SKC provided to Anacomp.’’ Petitioners

note that Anacomp declared bankruptcy

just prior to the period of review, and

emerged from bankruptcy in June 1996.

Petitioners point to Anacomp’s debt-toequity ratio as another indication of the

company’s poor financial condition.

Petitioners also note that the interest

rate incurred by SKC on borrowings in

the U.S. is below the U.S. prime rate.

Petitioners assert that Anacomp’s

financial condition ‘‘is shaky at best,’’

and that credit expenses on sales to

Anacomp should reflect Anacomp’s

poor financial condition. Petitioners

further contend that the Department

should use a rate higher than the rate

used to calculate SKC’s interest revenue

on sales to Anacomp. Petitioners note

that in DuPont, the CIT granted the

Department’s request for a remand to

consider Anacomp’s financial condition

in determining the short-term interest

rate to be utilized on SKC’s U.S. sales.

DuPont at 24.

SKC contends that the purpose of

making an adjustment for U.S. credit

expenses is to account for the

opportunity cost that the seller incurs in

waiting for payment from the buyer.

SKC argues that the Department

requested a remand in DuPont only

because the issue had not been

addressed on the record of that review.

SKC further contends that the cost of

extending credit can only be measured

by the cost that the seller incurs in

borrowing funds. SKC argues that bad

debt expense (and not credit) represents

the costs associated with not receiving

payment. SKC further argues that

Departmental practice is to base bad

debt expense upon the actual expenses

realized by the company. SKC notes that

is has included its actual U.S. bad debt

expenses in its calculation of U.S.

indirect selling expenses. Finally, SKC

contends that Petitioners’ reliance on

LMI is misplaced. SKC notes that in

LMI, the Court instructed the

Department to base U.S. interest

expense upon the costs associated with

borrowing funds in the United States.

SKC notes that is based its calculation

of U.S. credit expense upon the costs

that it incurred in borrowing funds in

the United States.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SKC and disagree with Petitioners. The

Department has adopted a policy of

using a short-term interest rate tied to

the currency in which the sales are

denominated. (See Import

Administration Policy Bulletin No. 98.2,

Imputed Credit Expenses and Interest

Rates (February 23, 1998).) Subsequent

to the LMI decision we established a

practice of matching the short-term

interest rate to the currency because we

view this measure as accurately

reflecting the cost of providing credit to

the customer. (See, e.g.; AIMCOR v.

United States, Nos. 96–1502, 97–1009,

1998 U.S. App. Lexis 7077, at * 40 (Fed.

Cir. April 9, 1998) (AIMCOR); Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods

From Austria, 60 FR 33551, 33555 (June

28, 1995); Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate From Sweden; Final Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review,

61 FR 15772, 15780 (April 9, 1996).)

Moreover, in the second and third

administrative reviews where the

respondent had borrowings in the same

currency as the transaction we used the

weighted-average borrowing rates

realized in that particular currency. (See

Second and Third Reviews at 35184.) In

these final results we have continued to

base our calculations of SKC’s credit

expense upon the interest rate incurred

on SKC’s borrowings in the United

States. This approach is consistent with

the Court of Appeals’ decision in LMI.

In that case the Federal Circuit reversed

the Department’s calculation of U.S.

imputed credit expenses which used

home market borrowing rates because

the respondent had actual U.S. loans at

a much lower rate. (LMI at 460–61.)

Inasmuch as the respondent’s actual

borrowing experience demonstrated its

ability to secure financing in the United

States at a lower rate, the Federal Circuit

reasoned that use of the higher interest

rates did not reflect the commercial

reality of the respondent’s borrowing

experience in the United States.

Petitioner’ arguments make clear that

they have confused credit and bad-debt

expenses. Bad debt represents the risk

that the seller incurs of not receiving

payment, and was separately reported

by SKC in its calculation of indirect

selling expenses. In contrast, credit

expenses represents the opportunity

cost incurred by the seller in awaiting

payment. The extension of credit

constitutes an expense to the firm,

because it obligates funds which would

otherwise be available for other business

activities. Anacomp’s financial status

and condition has no bearing on SKC’s

imputed credit expenses computations

because imputed credit expense reflects

the opportunity cost experienced by the

seller (See AIMCOR, at *7–8).

Anacomp’s poor financial condition is

irrelevant in this instance because it has

no bearing upon the opportunity costs

incurred by SKC due to delayed

payment. Similarly, neither Anacomp’s

declared bankruptcy nor it’s interest rate

in the commercial market place are

reflective of the opportunity costs

incurred by SKC in extending credit.

Finally, we note that if we were to adopt

the approach advanced by Petitioners,

the distinction between credit expenses

and bad debt would cease to exist.

SKC misapprehends the LMI decision.

In LMI, the Federal Circuit reversed the

Department for basing U.S. imputed

credit costs upon the cost of borrowing

funds in the home market, as opposed

to the market in which the sales where

made. SKC’s calculation of U.S. credit,

however, is based upon borrowings

undertaken by SKC in the United States.

SKC’s calculation is therefore consistent

with LMI and the Department’s

established practice.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that a weighted-average

margin of 0.36 percent exists for SKC.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumpting duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

export price and normal value may vary

from the percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

for all shipments of PET film from the

Republic of Korea within the scope of

the order entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) no

cash deposit shall be required for SKC

because the weighted average margin is

less than 0.5 percent and therefore de

minimis; (2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the
37338 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

1 Gulf States was previously a division of Quanex

Corporation.

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fair

value (LTFV) investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate will

be 21.50 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the remand

redetermination of the LTFV

investigation, as explained below. These

deposit requirements shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and subsequent assessment of

double antidumping duties.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation. Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18446 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–826]

Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line

and Pressure Pipe From Brazil; Final

Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

changed circumstances antidumping

duty administrative review, and

revocation in part of antidumping duty

order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen M. Kramer or Linda Ludwig, AD/

CVD Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–0405 or (202) 482–

3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 27, 1998, the Gulf States

Tube Division of Vision Metals (‘‘Gulf

States’’) 1, a petitioner in this case,

requested that the Department of

Commerce (the Department) conduct a

changed circumstances antidumping

duty administrative review to determine

whether to revoke in part the

antidumping duty order on small

diameter circular seamless carbon and

alloy steel standard, line and pressure

pipe from Brazil with respect to certain

glass-lined seamless pressure pipe. Gulf

States and Koppel Steel Corporation, the

petitioners in this case, expressed no

further interest in the relief provided by

the antidumping duty order with

respect to certain glass-lined seamless

pressure pipe imported from Brazil.

Accordingly, on May 22, 1998, the

Department published a notice of

initiation and preliminary results of

changed circumstances antidumping

duty administrative review and intent to

revoke this order in part (63 FR 28357).

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of this changed

circumstances review. No comments

were received.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, found in 62 FR

27296 (May 19, 1997).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review and

partial revocation are shipments of

seamless carbon and alloy (other than

stainless) steel pipes, of circular crosssection, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5

inches) in outside diameter, regardless

of wall thickness or manufacturing

process (hot-finished or cold-drawn)

that (1) has been cut into lengths of six

to 120 inches, (2) has had the inside

bore ground to a smooth surface, (3) has

had multiple layers of specially

formulated corrosion resistant glass

permanently baked on at temperatures

of 1,440 to 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in

thicknesses from 0.032 to 0.085 inch (40

to 80 mils), and (4) has flanges or other

forged stub ends welded on both ends

of the pipe. The special corrosion

resistant glass referred to in this

definition may be glass containing by

weight (1) 70 to 80 percent of an oxide

of silicone, zirconium, titanium or

cerium (Oxide Group RO2), (2) 10 to 15

percent of an oxide of sodium,

potassium, or lithium (Oxide Group

RO), (3) from a trace amount to 5

percent of an oxide of either aluminum,

cobalt, iron, vanadium, or boron (Oxide

Group R2O3, or (4) from a trace amount

to 5 percent of a fluorine compound in

which fluorine replaces the oxygen in

any one of the previously listed oxide

groups. These glass-lined pressure pipes

are commonly manufactured for use in

glass-lined equipment systems for

processing corrosive or reactive

chemicals, including acrylates,

alkanolamines, herbicides, pesticides,

pharmaceuticals and solvents.

The glass-lined pressure pipes subject

to this review are currently classifiable

under subheadings 7304.39.0020,

7304.39.0024 and 7304.39.0028 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs’

purposes only. The written description

of the scope of this review remains

dispositive.